MQ-8 Fire Scout
The development and employment of unmanned systems for combat applications over the last two decades has helped to define the modern battlefield. Department of Defense interest, and more importantly funding, has contributed directly to advancements in the field of unmanned aviation and robotics. High endurance fixed-wing assets are frequently thought to be the stereotype platform associated with military drones, however alternatives to that norm exist. The MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is one such platform that strays from the fixed-wing designs that seemingly dominate the field. The Fire Scout’s major difference is in the type airframe utilized; a conventional single-rotor helicopter. The capability to take off and land vertically is one way to tackle the issue of limited space for launch and recovery, a common issue for shipboard operations. The U.S. Navy’s interest in platforms, like the MQ-8, is therefore obvious.
The MQ-8 system developed by Northrop Grumman currently has two variants that utilize entirely different airframes, but with similar core components. The smaller MQ-8B is based on a Schweizer 333, while the more recent MQ-8C is based on the Bell 407 (Fire Scout, n.d.). The MQ-8B has been proven in combat, while the MQ-8C was developed to incorporate enhancements driven by U.S. Navy requirements and has met test and evaluation goals. The multi-role platforms are primarily designed for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and target-acquisition (ISR&T), but have been tested with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) (Fire Scout, n.d.). The capabilities of a small rotary-wing platform have garnered continued interest in further development.
A lesser considered component of the UAS is its ground control system (GCS). The system has both GCS intended for shipboard and land-based operations. The control systems share features, but differ mainly in communications systems. The shipboard system ties directly into the ship’s communication network, while the ground-based system uses a Northrop Grumman communications system (McHale, 2010). Otherwise, a majority of the control station components are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS). The system’s control computer is comprised of three Themis RES-32s running Sun Microsystem’s Solaris operating system, and are in compliance with the NATO standard STANAG 4586 (McHale, 2010). COTS availability contributes to a reduction in development time and cost. Additionally, using commercially available equipment allows for easier upgrading as hardware and software become outdated or obsolete.
Functionally, the system is not without issues. As with other UAS, the MQ-8 GCS utilizes video screens for communicating flight data and video feed from the platform to the pilot and payload operator. Initial GCS configurations used four relatively small screens: two each for the pilot and payload operator (McHale, 2010). The smaller video screens effectively limits the amount of data presented and the detail of video shared with the operator. Another issue is video display configurability. A frequent critique of early control stations was the limited ability to configure the display as desired by the operator (McHale, 2010).
While perceptual limitations are inherent to remote vehicle operation, there are methods to increase the efficiency of data communication between the vehicle and the operator. Feedback from operators prompted a change to larger screens. Both electro-optical (EO) sensors and video display technology are two system components that have contributed to the overall progress made in UAS. The change to 16 by 9 high definition displays in 2010 was a significant improvement at the time, but is outdated by comparison to what is commercially available today (McHale, 2010). Fortunately video displays and EO payloads can be updated with relative ease. Upgrading the image data available to the operator aids in mitigating the effects of limiting visual cues.
While fixed display configurations have the benefit of easing training, the efficiency of operators can be negatively affected when the information layout is not customizable (McHale, 2010). If flight data is not efficiently communicated to the operator, it can be a hinderance. Unmanned systems engineers have to address initial design requirements, standards and guidelines requirements, and user requirements in the process of finalizing a design for a GCS (Amida, T., Chung, J., Roy, S., & Simon, E. 2017). In the case of the MQ-8 GCS, the system could benefit from the flexibility of customizable flight data displays similar in principle to the interface of modern personal electronic devices.
The MQ-8 GCS is a control system proven capable of the U.S. Navy’s initial ISR&T requirements, but as is common with the military’s many other unmanned platforms, additional tasking is sure to come. As the platform matures, so should the GCS. Improving the visual display and flight data interface is a solid staring point for addressing know human factors issues.
Figure 1. Fire Scout training center GCS Naval Air Station, Jacksonville. Image retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3_IKYVnEIo
Reference
Amida, T., Chung, J., Roy, S., & Simon, E. (2017, December). Evaluating UAV ground control station design using available human factors guidelines and standards. Retrieved from https://www.presagis.com/workspace/uploads/files/white-paper-evaluating-uav-ground-control-station-design-using-available-human-factors-guidelines-and-standards.pdf
Fire Scout. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/FireScout/Pages/default.aspx?utm_source=PrintAd&utm_medium=Redirect&utm_campaign=FireScout+Redirect
McHale, J. (2010, June 18). Ground control stations for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are becoming networking-hub cockpits on the ground for U.S. unmanned forces. Retrieved from https://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2010/06/ground-control-stations.html
No comments:
Post a Comment